Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lindyhopfan]

Since Dominion cards are sort of like little computer programs, it might be useful to imagine implementing it as a computer program (in pseudo-code). This is how I might first try to implement Band of Misfits. It's not a perfect solution, but at least it illustrates the general idea. And it shows why it's pretty natural for the second play of BoM to allow a different choice than the first one, in my opinion.

Code: [Select]

def playFeast(card):
  card.trash()
  Gain a card costing up to $5.


class Feast:
  def play():
    playFeast(this)


def playMonument(card):
  +$2
  +1 VP token


class Monument:
  def play():
    playMonument(this)


def playThroneRoom(card):
  Choose an Action card 'x' in your hand.
  x.play()
  x.play()


class ThroneRoom:
  def play():
    playThroneRoom(this)


class BandOfMisfits:
  Initially, this.howToPlay = NULL

  def play():
    if this.howToPlay == NULL:
      First time...  this.howToPlay = playFeast
      Second time... this.howToPlay = playMonument

    this.howToPlay(this)

  def onLeavesPlay():
    this.howToPlay = NULL


How's this for an alternate psuedo-code?  Let me know what you think, or if this is unclear.

Code: [Select]

def getCardPlayingHelperObject(PhysicalCard x):
  if(x.card_name == "Feast"){
    return new Feast_CardPlayingHelperObject(x)
  }
  else if(x.card_name == "Monument"){
    return new Monument_CardPlayingHelperObject(x)
  }
  else if(x.card_name == "ThroneRoom"){
    return new ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject(x)
  }
  else if(x.card_name == "BandOfMisfits"){
    return new BandOfMisfits_CardPlayingHelperObject(x)
  }

class PhysicalCard:
  String card_name = {{Literal card name printed on the card}}
  Int card_cost = {{Literal card cost printed on the card}}
 
  constructor PhysicalCard()
    return this

  def play():
     cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(this)
     cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
   

class Feast_CardPlayingHelperObject:

  constructor Feast_CardPlayingHelperObject(PhysicalCard x):
    return this

  def play():
    this.trash()
    Gain a card costing up to $5.


class Monument_CardPlayingHelperObject:
 
  constructor Monument_CardPlayingHelperObject(PhysicalCard x):
    return this

  def play():
    +$2
    +1 VP token


class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:

  constructor ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject(PhysicalCard x):
    return this

  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()


class BandOfMisfits_CardPlayingHelperObject:
 
  constructor BandOfMisfits_CardPlayingHelperObject(PhysicalCard x):
    Choose a Physical card z that is in the supply where z.cardcost < x.cardcost
    return getCardPlayingHelperObject(z)


[blueblimp]

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()


This section is where my quibble is. Throne Room reads "Choose an Action card in your hand. Play it twice." What you've implemented here is more like "Choose an Action card in your hand. Remember how to play it. Using the rules you remember, play it twice.". This is perfectly reasonable if Throne Room only reads the card text once. If it reads it twice (which is what I think), then it's wrong.

[lindyhopfan]

(Before I thought two rulings didn't agree that well. Now I try to adjust and see it in such a way that it does make sense.)

So I'm curious what makes Throne Room remember that the card it played was a Mining Village.

Thinking algorithmically it's always best to take note of all the instructions on a card before starting to execute it. Just executing one line at a time might mean that we miss the last part if we have to burn the card at an earlier step (hypothetical example from Donald X. earlier). So playing a card entails copying it into temporary local storage and then executing orders from that copy line by line.

I think we should see it like "Play that card twice" doesn't mean exactly "Play that card. Play that card." Instead the setting-up is done only once, and then we follow those copied instructions twice. So Throne Room doesn't have to remember that the card it played was a Mining Village, because it doesn't have to look at the card a second time.

This is exactly what I have done in my psuedo-code.

[blueblimp]

(Before I thought two rulings didn't agree that well. Now I try to adjust and see it in such a way that it does make sense.)

So I'm curious what makes Throne Room remember that the card it played was a Mining Village.

Thinking algorithmically it's always best to take note of all the instructions on a card before starting to execute it. Just executing one line at a time might mean that we miss the last part if we have to burn the card at an earlier step (hypothetical example from Donald X. earlier). So playing a card entails copying it into temporary local storage and then executing orders from that copy line by line.

I think we should see it like "Play that card twice" doesn't mean exactly "Play that card. Play that card." Instead the setting-up is done only once, and then we follow those copied instructions twice. So Throne Room doesn't have to remember that the card it played was a Mining Village, because it doesn't have to look at the card a second time.

This is exactly what I have done in my psuedo-code.

Okay, but why is

Code: [Select]

  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
more natural than

Code: [Select]

  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    y.play();
    y.play();
?

The second seems much closer to the text, to me.

[RD]

I think we should see it like "Play that card twice" doesn't mean exactly "Play that card. Play that card." Instead the setting-up is done only once, and then we follow those copied instructions twice. So Throne Room doesn't have to remember that the card it played was a Mining Village, because it doesn't have to look at the card a second time.

But why shouldn't Throne Room be able to remember that it played a Mining Village? This isn't an obstacle.

Again the lose track rule does not destroy information, just prevents you from moving cards. You can still play a card that's been moved to the trash or burned to ash, if you have a way of doing so. The part of "playing the card" that involves physically relocating it to the play area will fail, but the rest works just fine.

I mean you COULD rule that TR works by pre-caching all the instructions, don't get me wrong. (Whether or not that's a natural interpretation of the wording is another question.) But you're not fixing any problem by doing so. The TR/Mining Village issue is equally well resolved by saying that TR plays the Mining Village that is in the trash, full stop. And I don't see why this leads to any contradiction in the case of BoM either.

[lindyhopfan]

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()


This section is where my quibble is. Throne Room reads "Choose an Action card in your hand. Play it twice." What you've implemented here is more like "Choose an Action card in your hand. Remember how to play it. Using the rules you remember, play it twice.". This is perfectly reasonable if Throne Room only reads the card text once. If it reads it twice (which is what I think), then it's wrong.

The concept of a cardPlayingHelperObject representing the rules of a card makes good sense to me.  It works well in my implementation of playing physical cards, and for representing what Band of Misfits does.  Following this scheme, then, this is what you would have me do?

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y) {{note that y's properties and location may have changed}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()

I just want to be clear what your theory is.  So, according to your theory, when throne room plays Feast is looks like:

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose the Physical Action card 'Feast' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play() {{Physical Feast card is "played" from hand to play area.  During play it's location switches to the trash}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y) {{reading card text of the Feast now in the trash}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play() {{Physical Feast card is "played" from trash.  But cards in trash do not come out of the trash without special rules to allow them to do so.  This is why the Physical Feast card cannot be moved to the trash a second time.  Even though it is in the trash it can, however, try to give you a card, so it does. }}


[lindyhopfan]

(Before I thought two rulings didn't agree that well. Now I try to adjust and see it in such a way that it does make sense.)

So I'm curious what makes Throne Room remember that the card it played was a Mining Village.

Thinking algorithmically it's always best to take note of all the instructions on a card before starting to execute it. Just executing one line at a time might mean that we miss the last part if we have to burn the card at an earlier step (hypothetical example from Donald X. earlier). So playing a card entails copying it into temporary local storage and then executing orders from that copy line by line.

I think we should see it like "Play that card twice" doesn't mean exactly "Play that card. Play that card." Instead the setting-up is done only once, and then we follow those copied instructions twice. So Throne Room doesn't have to remember that the card it played was a Mining Village, because it doesn't have to look at the card a second time.

This is exactly what I have done in my psuedo-code.

Okay, but why is

Code: [Select]

  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
more natural than

Code: [Select]

  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    y.play();
    y.play();
?

The second seems much closer to the text, to me.

Before Band of Misfits came along we never realized that there was is a moment as you are about to play a card where you need to take stock of how that card is going to be played.  Using the CardPlayingHelperObject concept is not "more natural" in terms of being closer to how people think in common practice: it adds complexity.  But from a programmer's perspective it is a way of designing our hypothetical program so that we can more easily take into account this moment of taking stock of how we are going to play the card.  It doesn't break the way any previously written cards work.  It also works great for the normal use of Band of Misfits.  The only question left is, when using the cardPlayingHelperObject concept, which definition of ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject's play method is correct:

Code: [Select]

  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()

or

Code: [Select]

  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play()


[blueblimp]

I'd maybe just write

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    getCardPlayingHelperObject(y).play()
    getCardPlayingHelperObject(y).play()
,
which seems simple enough. Maybe even define a play(x) function that just does getCardPlayingHelperObject(x).play(), to save the boilerplate.

I just want to be clear what your theory is.  So, according to your theory, when throne room plays Feast is looks like:

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose the Physical Action card 'Feast' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play() {{Physical Feast card is "played" from hand to play area.  During play it's location switches to the trash}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y) {{reading card text of the Feast now in the trash}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play() {{Physical Feast card is "played" from trash.  But cards in trash do not come out of the trash without special rules to allow them to do so.  This is why the Physical Feast card cannot be moved to the trash a second time.  Even though it is in the trash it can, however, try to give you a card, so it does. }}


Almost. The one thing I disagree with is "but cards in trash do not come out of the trash without special rules to allow them to do so". What's actually going on is: the only reason the Feast would normally move to play is that Throne Room moves it there (as part of playing it). But since the Feast trashed itself, Throne Room lost track of the Feast (doesn't know where it is), so TR can't move the Feast to play.

This is pretty much the same as described in the Throne Room/Mining Village bible entry:

Throne Room expects to find Mining Village in play, where it put it. Mining Village moved itself to the trash though. Throne Room can't find it there, and so doesn't put it back into play.

[lindyhopfan]

I'd maybe just write

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    getCardPlayingHelperObject(y).play()
    getCardPlayingHelperObject(y).play()
,
which seems simple enough. Maybe even define a play(x) function that just does getCardPlayingHelperObject(x).play(), to save the boilerplate.

This is functionally equivalent to the pseudocode I wrote to represent your theory, if we were to use my CardPlayingHelperObject system.

I just want to be clear what your theory is.  So, according to your theory, when throne room plays Feast is looks like:

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose the Physical Action card 'Feast' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play() {{Physical Feast card is "played" from hand to play area.  During play it's location switches to the trash}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y) {{reading card text of the Feast now in the trash}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play() {{Physical Feast card is "played" from trash.  But cards in trash do not come out of the trash without special rules to allow them to do so.  This is why the Physical Feast card cannot be moved to the trash a second time.  Even though it is in the trash it can, however, try to give you a card, so it does. }}


Almost. The one thing I disagree with is "but cards in trash do not come out of the trash without special rules to allow them to do so". What's actually going on is: the only reason the Feast would normally move to play is that Throne Room moves it there (as part of playing it). But since the Feast trashed itself, Throne Room lost track of the Feast (doesn't know where it is), so TR can't move the Feast to play.

I don't think the concept that the Throne Room "lost track" of the Feast fits with the rest of your theory.  If a card is played, no matter how it is played, and by whom, there is an attempt to move the card to the play area.  When the card is in your hand, this attempt usually succeeds.  When the card is in the trash the attempt fails.  If the Throne Room lost track of the Feast such that it can't move the Feast to play, it means that the Throne Room lost track of the Feast such that it can't play the Feast at all.  In fact, we know from Donald X's original Feast ruling that the Throne Room can play the Feast (since the card is gained).  If Throne Room can find the Feast to play it, then there is an attempt to move the card to the play area :: it is just inherent in the concept of "playing" a card.

If the Throne Room has truly lost track of the Feast card, as you say, it only reinforces my theory that Throne Room only needs to read the card text once to execute the instructions twice.  If Throne Room has lost track of the Feast card, it can't read the Feast card's card text again.  Your version where Throne Room must read through the card text on the actual card twice as part of playing the card twice depends on Throne Room being able to "see" the card in the trash, actually.

[blueblimp]

I'd maybe just write

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose a Physical Action card 'y' in your hand.
    getCardPlayingHelperObject(y).play()
    getCardPlayingHelperObject(y).play()
,
which seems simple enough. Maybe even define a play(x) function that just does getCardPlayingHelperObject(x).play(), to save the boilerplate.

This is functionally equivalent to the pseudocode I wrote to represent your theory, if we were to use my CardPlayingHelperObject system.

Yep, it's functionally the same. I just meant to illustrate that it's pretty clean and simple.

I just want to be clear what your theory is.  So, according to your theory, when throne room plays Feast is looks like:

Code: [Select]

class ThroneRoom_CardPlayingHelperObject:
...
  def play():
    Choose the Physical Action card 'Feast' in your hand.
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y)
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play() {{Physical Feast card is "played" from hand to play area.  During play it's location switches to the trash}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject = getCardPlayingHelperObject(y) {{reading card text of the Feast now in the trash}}
    cardPlayingHelperObject.play() {{Physical Feast card is "played" from trash.  But cards in trash do not come out of the trash without special rules to allow them to do so.  This is why the Physical Feast card cannot be moved to the trash a second time.  Even though it is in the trash it can, however, try to give you a card, so it does. }}


Almost. The one thing I disagree with is "but cards in trash do not come out of the trash without special rules to allow them to do so". What's actually going on is: the only reason the Feast would normally move to play is that Throne Room moves it there (as part of playing it). But since the Feast trashed itself, Throne Room lost track of the Feast (doesn't know where it is), so TR can't move the Feast to play.

I don't think the concept that the Throne Room "lost track" of the Feast is correct.  If a card is played, no matter how it is played, and by whom, there is an attempt to move the card to the play area.  When the card is in your hand, this attempt usually succeeds.  When the card is in the trash the attempt fails.  If the Throne Room lost track of the Feast such that it can't move the Feast to play, it means that the Throne Room lost track of the Feast such that it can't play the Feast at all.  In fact, we know from Donald X's original Feast ruling that the Throne Room can play the Feast (since the card is gained).  If Throne Room can find the Feast to play it, then there is an attempt to move the card to the play area :: it is just inherent in the concept of "playing" a card.

The Throne Room definitely loses track of the Feast before the second play. The TR/Mining Village situation is the same, and there it's clear that if the MV is trashed on the first play, then the TR loses track of it. Even though TR has lost track of the Feast, it can still play it, because the only thing you can't do to a lost card is move it.

[Wolphmaniac]

Saw this question on page 1 but no answer through page 4...forgive me if already answered, but...

How does BoM work as an Island?  You play it, you set it aside on the Island mat...and it has now left play... so it's now a BoM hopelessly stranded forever on a desert island?

[Kirian]

Saw this question on page 1 but no answer through page 4...forgive me if already answered, but...

How does BoM work as an Island?  You play it, you set it aside on the Island mat...and it has now left play... so it's now a BoM hopelessly stranded forever on a desert island?

I believe that's correct.

[Wolphmaniac]

Saw this question on page 1 but no answer through page 4...forgive me if already answered, but...

How does BoM work as an Island?  You play it, you set it aside on the Island mat...and it has now left play... so it's now a BoM hopelessly stranded forever on a desert island?

I believe that's correct.

OK thanks.  Sounds like Island is definitely the worst possible target for BoM.   

[lindyhopfan]

The Throne Room definitely loses track of the Feast before the second play. The TR/Mining Village situation is the same, and there it's clear that if the MV is trashed on the first play, then the TR loses track of it. Even though TR has lost track of the Feast, it can still play it, because the only thing you can't do to a lost card is move it.

Ok, so by "loses track of" you actually mean a technical definition that boils down to "can't move it".  Fine.

So, your theory is that the Throne Room can't move the Feast, but can and does read the text on the physical card in the trash and follow it as far as is possible (i.e. giving you a card).

My theory is that the Throne Room reads the text on the card and then executes those instructions twice.  Note that in my psuedocode, the CardPlayingHelperObject retains a reference to the original PhysicalCard, which is how it knows to physically move the card from your hand to the play area, and then from the play area to the trash the first time the Throne Room plays the card.

The difference between your reading and mine comes with the fact that, from the way most people understand the trash, a trashed card is "gone".  You don't read the text of a card in the trash unless you played a special card that actually looks at the cards in the trash pile.  To represent the normal understanding of what happens to a card when it goes into the trash in our programming code, you could say that the value of PhysicalCard y is now NULL.  The way my theory works, this doesn't even matter.  ThroneRoom will do the set of instructions twice whether the physical card no longer exists, whether it is truly lost so that ThroneRoom can't even read it, whether it is "psudeo-lost" under the technical definition that really means only "can't move it", or whether it is in a known location such as the play area or in your hand.

My theory is consistent with Donald X's original ruling on how Feast works, it is consistent with Donald X's new ruling on how Band of Misfits works, it is consistent with the TR/Mining Village ruling.  The only thing it is not consistent with is your intuition that throne room must read the physical card twice as part of the definition of playing it.  What's crazy is that with Band of Misfits, you don't even read the physical text of the card at all, if anything you are reading the physical text of the card it is masquerading as.

Here's another consequence of your theory that I just thought of: suppose you Throne Room a Band of Misfits and choose Ambassador as the card to emulate.  Suppose there is one Ambassador left in the supply.  Further suppose you reveal an Ambassador from your hand and choose to return no copies of the ambassador to the supply, causing your opponent to pick up the last Ambassador.

According to your theory that Throne Room re-evaluates the card when playing it a second time, wouldn't it make sense that the Throne Room actually picks up the card from the play area (since according to you it has not yet 'lost track of it' which just means 'it can move it') removing it from play temporarily even in the normal case that doesn't involve the trash, in preparation for playing it again?

If this is the case, then Band of Misfits is a Band of Misfits again once it is back in your hand ready to be played again, but this time you can't legally pick Ambassador since there are no copies of it in the supply.  I think most people would clearly play this: I play a Throne Room and pick Band of Misfits.  I'm playing my Band of Misfits as an Ambassador, so I do the Ambassador action twice.  Also, this is how Donald X. says it should be played.

[Wolphmaniac]

Another one I just thought of:

What if you play your BoM as a duration card (or as a Throne Room that acts on a duration card)... your turn ends and you leave the BoM-as-duration in front of you on duration... then someone else ends the game.  Is the BoM still in play and thus still the duration card?  Or does it get cleaned up and go back to being a BoM?  This could have an effect on the value of Fairgrounds, if the BoM is something other than itself at the end of the game.  Sure, it's a corner case, but sooner or later there will be a game that comes down to this!  (Note that Fairgrounds would have to see the BoM as whatever card it is impersonating, because earlier in the thread DXV said that Horn of Plenty sees BoM not as BoM but as whatever card it was impersonating i.e. Village+BoM-as-village+HOP=gain $2 card, not $3 card...therefore if the BoM is a Caravan at the end of the game, then Fairgrounds has to see it as Caravan.  Thus the only question is whether the BoM is a Caravan or not.)

So really my question is, where exactly do duration cards that are still in play go when another player ends the game?  Are they still considered in play or are they cleaned up?  The Seaside rules say: "A Duration card does something after your turn. Leave the card in front of you until the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something (discard it before drawing for the following turn). So if the card says 'Now and on your next turn,' discard it during the Clean-up phase of your next turn."  This seems to indicate that cards on duration at the end of the game should still be considered in play, but the wording may not quite be airtight enough to cover this new BoM case.

[werothegreat]

TR-> Feast: "Trash it.  Do this."  It performs this twice.  The second time around, there is nothing to trash, but there is no "if", so it still "does this."

TR-> Mining Village: "Do A.  If trash, do B."  It performs this twice.  If you trash the first time around, then on the second time, there is nothing to trash, so it only does A.

TR-> Band of Misfits: "Turn into something else.  Be that until you leave play."  The "be that until you leave play" overrides Throne Room performing the card twice - you're not playing Band of Misfits again, you're playing the thing it turned into again.

So the Lose Track rule can be summarized like so:

1) If Card A needs to know what Card B is, it will know it for the entirety that Card A is played, even if Card B goes somewhere odd.

2) If Card B is sidetracked and sent somewhere unusual, Card A cannot move it to the place Card A would normally move it, and "loses track" of its position.

3) If there's an "if," certain things cannot be done.

4) "When" implies simultaneity.

5) If there's a "would," forget everything above this.

[blueblimp]

The difference between your reading and mine comes with the fact that, from the way most people understand the trash, a trashed card is "gone".

I agree that most people would understand trashed cards as "gone", but they aren't really gone. After all, this is Dark Ages we're talking about, where there are multiple ways for cards to come back from the trash. They definitely aren't gone!

You don't read the text of a card in the trash unless you played a special card that actually looks at the cards in the trash pile.

If this were true, it would contradict the Procession/BoM ruling, which was mentioned by Donald X earlier in this thread:

I checked and it was actually Doug Z. who argued for that ruling. The idea is that Band of Misfits has left play and so it stopped being Fortress. The madness has ended; at the point at which Procession checks, the card is in the trash and costs $5. It had a different cost when we trashed it, but there we are asking for the cost when it's in the trash.

And he reiterated later why this is:

"Lose track" only applies when some other thing moves the card; a card keeps track of cards it moves itself, which is essential so that for example Procession can find the card in play in order to trash it (since it moved from your hand). And of course "lose track" only prevents moving, not information-getting.

So I am 100% confident that it's okay to read the text of a card in the trash. If it weren't, the Dark Ages FAQ would be wrong, since it includes the Procession/BoM ruling.

Here's another consequence of your theory that I just thought of: suppose you Throne Room a Band of Misfits and choose Ambassador as the card to emulate.  Suppose there is one Ambassador left in the supply.  Further suppose you reveal an Ambassador from your hand and choose to return no copies of the ambassador to the supply, causing your opponent to pick up the last Ambassador.

According to your theory that Throne Room re-evaluates the card when playing it a second time, wouldn't it make sense that the Throne Room actually picks up the card from the play area (since according to you it has not yet 'lost track of it' which just means 'it can move it') removing it from play temporarily even in the normal case that doesn't involve the trash, in preparation for playing it again?

No, why would it get picked up? Throne Room doesn't anywhere say to remove the card from play before playing it the second time. It stays in the play area, unmoved.

It would only leave play if it actually moved somewhere other than play, which it doesn't.

[RD]

So really my question is, where exactly do duration cards that are still in play go when another player ends the game?  Are they still considered in play or are they cleaned up? 

Base rules:

The game ends at the end of any player’s turn when either:
1) the Supply pile of Province cards is empty or
2) any 3 Supply piles are empty.

Each player puts all of his cards into his Deck and counts the
victory points on all the cards he has.

To me the most natural interpretation is that moving BoM back to your deck at this point triggers the card text and reverts it. There's no rule that Victory cards are the only cards whose text still has effects in the ending stages of the game. (But if that were so and BoM's text no longer has any meaning, you could make the case that this too means BoM is just a BoM.)

[blueblimp]

TR-> Feast: "Trash it.  Do this."  It performs this twice.  The second time around, there is nothing to trash, but there is no "if", so it still "does this."

TR-> Mining Village: "Do A.  If trash, do B."  It performs this twice.  If you trash the first time around, then on the second time, there is nothing to trash, so it only does A.

My understanding here is that it's not true that there's "nothing to trash"--there is something to trash, but it's in the trash already, and you can't trash something that's already in the trash. (This is a little inconsistent with the ability of Throne Room to play something that's actually in play, but it's been this way since Intrigue, so it's not some new wrinkle.)

[blueblimp]

TR-> Feast: "Trash it.  Do this."  It performs this twice.  The second time around, there is nothing to trash, but there is no "if", so it still "does this."

TR-> Mining Village: "Do A.  If trash, do B."  It performs this twice.  If you trash the first time around, then on the second time, there is nothing to trash, so it only does A.

My understanding here is that it's not true that there's "nothing to trash"--there is something to trash, but it's in the trash already, and you can't trash something that's already in the trash. (This is a little inconsistent with the ability of Throne Room to play something that's actually in play, but it's been this way since Intrigue, so it's not some new wrinkle.)

Correcting myself a little here--the reason Mining Village fails to trash itself the second time is that it expects itself to be in play (and thus loses track of itself), not because it's already in the trash. Reference:

For your specific combo, the question is, does Mining Village expect itself to be in play. Yes. It would normally be in play after being played, and it expects to find itself in play. If it's not in play then it can't move itself to the trash.

[lindyhopfan]

The difference between your reading and mine comes with the fact that, from the way most people understand the trash, a trashed card is "gone".

I agree that most people would understand trashed cards as "gone", but they aren't really gone. After all, this is Dark Ages we're talking about, where there are multiple ways for cards to come back from the trash. They definitely aren't gone!

You don't read the text of a card in the trash unless you played a special card that actually looks at the cards in the trash pile.

If this were true, it would contradict the Procession/BoM ruling, which was mentioned by Donald X earlier in this thread:

I checked and it was actually Doug Z. who argued for that ruling. The idea is that Band of Misfits has left play and so it stopped being Fortress. The madness has ended; at the point at which Procession checks, the card is in the trash and costs $5. It had a different cost when we trashed it, but there we are asking for the cost when it's in the trash.

And he reiterated later why this is:

"Lose track" only applies when some other thing moves the card; a card keeps track of cards it moves itself, which is essential so that for example Procession can find the card in play in order to trash it (since it moved from your hand). And of course "lose track" only prevents moving, not information-getting.

So I am 100% confident that it's okay to read the text of a card in the trash. If it weren't, the Dark Ages FAQ would be wrong, since it includes the Procession/BoM ruling.

Procession is a card that quite explicitly reads the text of a card in the trash.  You trash a card and then read the cost of the card in the trash pile.  Of course it is okay to read the text of a card in the trash pile when your card's action tells you to do so.  That doesn't mean that the second playing of a Throne'd Feast is literally "playing" the Feast card that is sitting in the trash pile in the sense of reading what it says and doing it as far as possible.  It could be that this is what happens, in which case your theory would be right, and Donald X. should re-evaluate his reading.

Let me put my version into words one more way to help Donald X. decide for sure if he wants to continue his ruling.

My theory is that Throne Room could be re-worded as follows and still operate correctly under the current ruling:

Throne Room
$4
Choose an action card in your hand.  Move the action card to the play area.  Now, copy the text of that card into the blank space below.  Whenever that text refers to "this card", apply the text as if the reference was for the original action card.
{{blank space here}}
Now, follow the instructions in the blank space again.  Again, references to "this card" refer to the original action card, not this Throne Room.

So, Donald X, if this consequence feels wrong to you, and you think that we should instead be reading the text of the original action card twice in the process of playing it twice, by all means change your ruling.

Here's another consequence of your theory that I just thought of: suppose you Throne Room a Band of Misfits and choose Ambassador as the card to emulate.  Suppose there is one Ambassador left in the supply.  Further suppose you reveal an Ambassador from your hand and choose to return no copies of the ambassador to the supply, causing your opponent to pick up the last Ambassador.

According to your theory that Throne Room re-evaluates the card when playing it a second time, wouldn't it make sense that the Throne Room actually picks up the card from the play area (since according to you it has not yet 'lost track of it' which just means 'it can move it') removing it from play temporarily even in the normal case that doesn't involve the trash, in preparation for playing it again?

No, why would it get picked up? Throne Room doesn't anywhere say to remove the card from play before playing it the second time. It stays in the play area, unmoved.

It would only leave play if it actually moved somewhere other than play, which it doesn't.

Throne Room doesn't anywhere say to move the card from your hand into the play area, either.  That is instead just part of the definition of playing a card: move the card from your hand to the play area.  The definition pre-supposes that the the card is in your hand, so I was hypothesizing that perhaps "play this card twice" has, as a hidden sub-text, the idea of picking it up to play it again.  I know that when playing with physical cards, most people physically move the card being played down, then up, then down again as they explain what they are doing, so I'm not the only person to think of it this way.  You could be right that the correct interpretation of "play" includes the notion, "If this card is in your hand, move it to the play area, else just leave the card where it is and play it there.  I don't know.

[Wolphmaniac]

So really my question is, where exactly do duration cards that are still in play go when another player ends the game?  Are they still considered in play or are they cleaned up? 

Base rules:

The game ends at the end of any player’s turn when either:
1) the Supply pile of Province cards is empty or
2) any 3 Supply piles are empty.

Each player puts all of his cards into his Deck and counts the
victory points on all the cards he has.

To me the most natural interpretation is that moving BoM back to your deck at this point triggers the card text and reverts it. There's no rule that Victory cards are the only cards whose text still has effects in the ending stages of the game. (But if that were so and BoM's text no longer has any meaning, you could make the case that this too means BoM is just a BoM.)

I think I agree with you...but again this language is not tight enough for the BoM case.  This case needs its own rule from DXV.  The game ends at the end of the player's turn, not when you move all of your cards to your deck.  As soon as that other player's turn is over with either of the two end conditions met...boom...the game is over, therefore it is easy for someone to argue, "My BoM was a Caravan when the game ended.  It's still a Caravan." 

This could have significant endgame repercussions in the right kingdom.  Say you play three BoM's as a Throne Room (modifying a duration, thus staying out on duration) a Caravan, and a Haven (none of which you actually have any copies of)...and as long as they're on duration as those cards they are popping your six Fairgrounds for 2 extra points apiece or 12 total points.  If they don't go back to being BoM's when another player ends the game, then this could be a tactic to prevent your opponent from ending the game on their turn.     

[blueblimp]

Procession is a card that quite explicitly reads the text of a card in the trash.  You trash a card and then read the cost of the card in the trash pile.  Of course it is okay to read the text of a card in the trash pile when your card's action tells you to do so.  That doesn't mean that the second playing of a Throne'd Feast is literally "playing" the Feast card that is sitting in the trash pile in the sense of reading what it says and doing it as far as possible.  It could be that this is what happens, in which case your theory would be right, and Donald X. should re-evaluate his reading.

I think that, yes, the second play from TR is literally playing the trashed Feast. If we dig into the BGG thread that contained the TR/MV explanation:

Why would you ever do two things with a card - why not just jump to the second thing? But Throne does exactly that. It plays it and then plays it again. So something could actually have happened to the card in the middle. And if something has, Throne can't yank it back into play. There are cases where you really won't know where the card is, so I have to draw the line somewhere, and the simplest place is, "if it's moved at all."

For the "plays it again", what could "it" be except the trashed card? (There are other DXV posts also worth reading in that BGG thread.)

Throne Room doesn't anywhere say to move the card from your hand into the play area, either.  That is instead just part of the definition of playing a card: move the card from your hand to the play area.  The definition pre-supposes that the the card is in your hand, so I was hypothesizing that perhaps "play this card twice" has, as a hidden sub-text, the idea of picking it up to play it again.  I know that when playing with physical cards, most people physically move the card being played down, then up, then down again as they explain what they are doing, so I'm not the only person to think of it this way.  You could be right that the correct interpretation of "play" includes the notion, "If this card is in your hand, move it to the play area, else just leave the card where it is and play it there.  I don't know.

The definition of playing a card is a bit problematic, because Golem actually puts a card into play from being revealed, not from your hand. I'm not sure how this is resolved.

[eHalcyon]

So really my question is, where exactly do duration cards that are still in play go when another player ends the game?  Are they still considered in play or are they cleaned up? 

Base rules:

The game ends at the end of any player’s turn when either:
1) the Supply pile of Province cards is empty or
2) any 3 Supply piles are empty.

Each player puts all of his cards into his Deck and counts the
victory points on all the cards he has.

To me the most natural interpretation is that moving BoM back to your deck at this point triggers the card text and reverts it. There's no rule that Victory cards are the only cards whose text still has effects in the ending stages of the game. (But if that were so and BoM's text no longer has any meaning, you could make the case that this too means BoM is just a BoM.)

I think I agree with you...but again this language is not tight enough for the BoM case.  This case needs its own rule from DXV.  The game ends at the end of the player's turn, not when you move all of your cards to your deck.  As soon as that other player's turn is over with either of the two end conditions met...boom...the game is over, therefore it is easy for someone to argue, "My BoM was a Caravan when the game ended.  It's still a Caravan." 

This could have significant endgame repercussions in the right kingdom.  Say you play three BoM's as a Throne Room (modifying a duration, thus staying out on duration) a Caravan, and a Haven (none of which you actually have any copies of)...and as long as they're on duration as those cards they are popping your six Fairgrounds for 2 extra points apiece or 12 total points.  If they don't go back to being BoM's when another player ends the game, then this could be a tactic to prevent your opponent from ending the game on their turn.   

I would argue that no card can be in play if the game is over, so at game end it reverts to BoM whatever it was before.

[Kirian]

So really my question is, where exactly do duration cards that are still in play go when another player ends the game?  Are they still considered in play or are they cleaned up? 

Base rules:

The game ends at the end of any player’s turn when either:
1) the Supply pile of Province cards is empty or
2) any 3 Supply piles are empty.

Each player puts all of his cards into his Deck and counts the
victory points on all the cards he has.

To me the most natural interpretation is that moving BoM back to your deck at this point triggers the card text and reverts it. There's no rule that Victory cards are the only cards whose text still has effects in the ending stages of the game. (But if that were so and BoM's text no longer has any meaning, you could make the case that this too means BoM is just a BoM.)

I think I agree with you...but again this language is not tight enough for the BoM case.  This case needs its own rule from DXV.  The game ends at the end of the player's turn, not when you move all of your cards to your deck.  As soon as that other player's turn is over with either of the two end conditions met...boom...the game is over, therefore it is easy for someone to argue, "My BoM was a Caravan when the game ended.  It's still a Caravan." 

This could have significant endgame repercussions in the right kingdom.  Say you play three BoM's as a Throne Room (modifying a duration, thus staying out on duration) a Caravan, and a Haven (none of which you actually have any copies of)...and as long as they're on duration as those cards they are popping your six Fairgrounds for 2 extra points apiece or 12 total points.  If they don't go back to being BoM's when another player ends the game, then this could be a tactic to prevent your opponent from ending the game on their turn.     

That may be the most incredibly picayune reading of the rules I've seen in an attempt to find something crazy to do with a card.

When the game ends, all cards leave play, because no more playing is happening.  Bam, BoM is a BoM again.  I think trying to argue otherwise is as needlessly silly as asking what happens if neither player is willing to end the game.